Trolls & bots fail to understand or accept that Russia is anything but infinite and inevitable - but numbers are numbers. They've spent half of their entire Soviet inheritance to steal what they sit on today. The war doesn't end when they get to zero vehicles. The half they've squandered is surely the BETTER half, and they still need an army for territorial defense and internal repression. Ukraine is not about the break, and this is probably the best position Russia is ever going to be in. This is the endgame of this messy, abusive Divorce, and Pootz has to come up with some whopper lies to say it was all worthwhile.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] JillyB@beehaw.org 11 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Russia has thousands of nukes. No doubt they aren't in the best shape ever but they don't need all of them to work. And there's no way they'd nuke Ukraine. The rest of the world would ostracize them. You're just wrong.

[–] Triasha@lemmy.world 3 points 13 hours ago

Russia has been ostracized.

I suppose they could get embargoed harder by China and India, but if they nuked Ukraine they might get buked back.

The US might decide to hold off but the UK or France could put one down.

I doubt they would nuke a major city, but they might set one off in the country as a "Consequence"

[–] sepi@piefed.social 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Have you seen these nukes? Do you believe the russians at face value?

[–] BakerBagel@midwest.social 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That's a pretty big bet that no country would ever be prepared to make. That's like gambling the guy who broke into your home doesn't have any bullets in his gun

[–] sepi@piefed.social 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If I am punching the guy that broke into my house in the balls repeatedly and he doesn't shoot me, he either has no bullets or no gun.

[–] Skua@kbin.earth 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Or he's concerned about the five other guys with guns trained on him that all have a cautious understanding that nobody should shoot first. The Soviets didn't nuke Afghanistan and America didn't nuke Vietnam, after all

[–] sepi@piefed.social 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Are those others with guns and understanding in the room with Ukraine rigjt now?

[–] Skua@kbin.earth 1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

If by "in the room" we mean "in range of Russia", yes

[–] sepi@piefed.social 2 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

So you're in your house, right? And I'm in my house. Good so far?

So a guy breaks into my house, and I'm punching the guy in the balls repeatedly. And you, in your house, are currently afraid of that guy.

I think this is a perfect analogy for the current situation everybody finds themselves in at the moment.

[–] Skua@kbin.earth 1 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

Are you seriously trying to suggest that Russia nuking Ukraine would not provoke a serious reaction from the other nuclear powers?

[–] Tuuktuuk@piefed.ee 1 points 14 hours ago

It won't nuke Ukraine.

Firstly, in the Russia you need a triple order to launch nukes. Putin's order is not enough. And the two other people would not want to start a nuclear war. There's no way they'd okay a nuclear strike. And if Putin tried to convince them of that, they'd consider Putin having crossed a line that really does matter. And then there would be a headless Putin standing and a Putinless head rolling on the floor, really soon after that. Putin won't try his luck with that. He knows he'll just die if he does.

And secondly, it's unlikely that any of the nukes work. It's the same as with military trucks' tires. Everybody assumed they'd be never used in reality, so all the maintenance resources were embezzled.

Even if the Russia was to somehow assume that some of the nukes are not duds, they'd understand that they cannot know which one is the working one. You launch 1000 missiles, of which 3 detonate, and they happen to be the ones hitting less important targets. What happens next? Heh.

[–] sepi@piefed.social 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

It would be business as usual for all other countries. Pronouncements wohld be made in the media but no action. This is not unique to Ukraine.

[–] Skua@kbin.earth 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

If that's the case, why did the two cold war superpowers not use nukes in Afghanistan or Vietnam?

[–] sepi@piefed.social 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Do you think russia would have nuked anybody if Vietnam got nuked by the US? I honestly don't believe so.

[–] Skua@kbin.earth 1 points 8 hours ago

Considering some of the close calls we had from false positives, yes, I absolutely do think that

But again, if you're so sure that there would be no meaningful retaliation and that Russia would nuke Ukraine just now if it could, why did the Soviets not nuke Afghanistan and why did America not nuke Vietnam?